chriskun
Member
Except this isn't true at all.
How is this not true, has any new information come to light in the past month or so, I haven't been keeping up.
Except this isn't true at all.
The hardware may be based on DX specs but the APIs for the systems is not.
I think both the Wii and PS3 have inflated hardware numbers (relative to software buyers) because there have been a lot of people buying those systems who aren't particularly interested in games. I see this in real life, and we all see it on sales charts.
This is super YMMV and eye-ball data, but if I walk into a house with a Wii, I feel like there's about a 70% chance that they'll have nothing but Wii Sports and a dancing game. If I walk into a house with a PS3, I feel like there's about a 30% chance that they'll only be using it for Blu-rays and Netflix. If I walk into a house with a 360, I 100% expect to see some kind of collection of games. Obviously this isn't actual data, but that's the point I'm trying to discuss.
Like with UE3, UE4 compatibility isn't a matter of power, but programmability. If WiiU doesn't support the base level of GPU programmability UE4 requires, it won't be supported by Epic.
The demo at GDC won't run on WiiU no, the engine will eventually. Well see UE4 on any device with a modern feature set including mobile phones. "Power" isn't relevant.
This will probably be my first AND last post on the topic.
It's just an engine, nothing more! The matter to be concerned about is the possibility that some software may exploit that engine to a degree that overwhelms the Wii U, to the point where scalling back certain details makes it look/feel like an entirely different game.
Because of the deminishing returns, I personally believe that hardware in the near future will have to be tremendously more powerful than Wii U for the above case to be possible. The famed 3-4x multiple just won't cut it. It's still a valid concern in some - albeit less major - ways.
In any event, it's really up to the developers whether or not they want their UE4 game to look like the original Pac Man, or the industry's next best-looking game - and everything in between.
For reasons stated above, the power of the Wii U - in relations to UE4 - might only matter on a per game basis. Whether the engine is eventually supported on Wii U, will come down to the feature set of the console(devs already stated it has modern features), and how agressively Epic is trying to push their new engine. IIRC, they already implied that they plan to support other platforms much sooner than they did with UE3 and it's eventual debut on mobile, so we'll see IF and where Wii U fits, in their forecast.
The Wii U "officially" will not run UE4, this is no surprise to anyone here. (I said as much) An official confirmation of sorts from Geoff Keighley, via twitter, courtesy of Nirolak at Neo-Gaf: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=475868 I said that it was a transitional console, I didn't mince words. This term was meant to clearly deliniate the Wii U as beyond this console generation's visual & feature set capabilities, though not occupying the same technical power space as the Orbis & Durango.
I view this as a non-issue however, the Wii U is capable of more than what the Unreal 3 engine provides. (on current gen. systems) Gearbox's Wii U version of Aliens:CM should show this within the framework of UE3 cross-platform development.(esp.within their custom lighting engine) 4A Games' Metro:LL should follow suit as well on their proprietary engine. (some programmers over there are extremely gifted, & want to push the technical envelope even further) Proprietary Wii U engines will showcase this best however, as specific toolkits & feature sets are created to exploit the console's strengths. Expect more than just Retro's offering to truly impress at E3. Nintendo has made some very strong 3rd party partnerships for both cross, as well as console exclusive software.(even contacturally in some instances) This will not change once UE4 becomes widely accessible to developers. A repeat of the Wii's software demise is not in the cards I assure you. This also assumes that UE4 becomes the de facto middleware solution for the next generation.
Most developers will be utilizing Unreal 3 as a base early on regardless of Orbis's & Durango's ability to run UE4. As I posted earlier, MS's Durango's now going "all in" with UE4 as of the GDC. Prior to the GDC the Durango wasn't compatible either. In any case, do you truly believe that UE4 won't be scalabe to an extent? Frostbite, Cryengine, etc certainty are. From purely an economic viewpoint, this scenario makes no sense.
How is this not true, has any new information come to light in the past month or so, I haven't been keeping up.
In any event, it's really up to the developers whether or not they want their UE4 game to look like the original Pac Man, or the industry's next best-looking game - and everything in between
Where did you get that last quote from Stevie?How bout some actual data: the Wii's software tie-in ratio is 8.5 per console, according to the latest Nintendo financial report. That's within spitting distance of the PS3's tie ratio and just over a game off the 360's.
And this thread... wow.
ITT, people confuse "hardware power" with "hardware features". These people get it:
Yes
Yes
Yes!
And this from someone who would be in a position to know:
You won't see Epic make UE4 games on Wii U. That doesn't mean anything in regards to whether it will run on the hardware - the features on its chips will. Just in the same way that Durango will be running the engine despite not having a GPU that isn't comparable to the Kepler 680-equipped system used to demo the engine at GDC.
Where did you get that last quote from Stevie?
Where did you get that last quote from Stevie?
Li Mu Bai, a member of the Beyond3D forums who has a reputation as a Credible Source of Industry Insider Information.
My guess is the Beyond 3D forums.
Edit: and beaten by a second.
My guess is the Beyond 3D forums.
Edit: and beaten by a second.
I don't understand Nintendo's strategy behind releasing an underpowered system for the next-gen that won't be able to compete on a technical level with the next Xbox and Playstation.
Nintendo makes systems to sell Nintendo games. They also make sure to make a profit off each unit. It works for them for whatever reason people want to attribute. 3rd parties are at best fluff, and at worst competition. Some people want a Nintendo console to be the end all, be all system for the usual console warrior bullshit.
I think that's the idea.We know nothing about UE4, it's flexibility, when the current console life cycle will end, when it'll launch, and so many other things.
this just seems like a weird-ass, fanboy-war inducing comment.
Begins? No no, dumb people have been saying that about every Nintendo system since.It begins.
We've already seen a few devs outright say that the machine has more power than the current generation. Since this board has been through this a million times, it shouldn't be that hard to find through a search.
We currently don't know how much more power it has than 360/PS3, but we know it's higher than "on par" with current systems.
Didn't a dev also say that it is not as powerful as current gen systems in some aspects?
Didn't a dev also say that it is not as powerful as current gen systems in some aspects?
Didn't a dev also say that it is not as powerful as current gen systems in some aspects?
Yes, and other anonymous devs have said the exact opposite. Confirmation bias works wonders.
Yes, and other anonymous devs have said the exact opposite. Confirmation bias works wonders.
theres no bias, it seems the wii u has some strengths and weaknesses, but is almost completely similar comparison wise as the wii to gamecube leap. I don't see how anyone can believe the Wii U is going to hold a candle to Sony and Microsofts efforts graphic wise, considering their past hardware strategy for the past generation of console and handheld devices.
No, there is definitely a confirmation bias when it comes to rumours.
No, there is definitely a confirmation bias when it comes to rumours.
Isn't that all we have to go off right now???
No, it isn't.
umm ok, point me in the direction of the overwhelming hard evidence that exists.
Isn't that all we have to go off right now???
No, it isn't.
umm ok, point me in the direction of the overwhelming hard evidence that exists.
There is none. In any respect, on any side of any argument.
Am I missing something here?
bkillian said:No, see, when 360 launched, the XBox org was a "strategic bet" (Microsoft dumps tons of money into strategic bets - not all of them pan out). Now it's a profit center. It would be infeasible to reduce year over year profit growth. So selling hugely underpriced hardware now is going to be a tough sell.
But I wasn't referring to ancillary revenue. I was referring to direct hardware profits. The 360 launched with a roadmap to profitability using process shrinks and volume discounts. It's successor won't be so lucky. Process shrinks are getting harder to execute and energy efficiency is not linear with process size (much more leakage at smaller sizes).
Also, the customer focus has changed. People spend more time on 360 now consuming media than playing games. Sure, games are good, but what keeps that ancillary revenue coming in now is evenly split. You don't need a monster, power hungry, money losing superbox to provide streaming movies, and the games will adapt to the resources they have. A modest increase could be workable. Quadruple the memory, and even with no changes in CPU and GPU, the games would be significantly better.
If the rumors have any truth in them, both sides are aiming a lot lower this next generation that the previous.
So I was not saying MS is not currently making money on it's games business, I was just pointing out that your original statement overlooked the fact that the company may not be as willing to dump money into the ecosystem as it was last time around.
Any hard evidence on that "NDA" that is being thrown around all the time?
I see people implying that nobody can say anything about the Wii-U, except there are statements made almost every day. By devs, media, what have you.
Is it just wishful thinking at this point? Because it sounds like people expect the NDA to be lifted someday, and suddenly devs coming out of the woodwork in full support of the Wii-U, carrying spec sheets.
Any hard evidence on that "NDA" that is being thrown around all the time?
I see people implying that nobody can say anything about the Wii-U, except there are statements made almost every day. By devs, media, what have you.
ok, so you are saying that sony and microsofts efforts won't be that much stronger than Wii U?
This still doesn't change the fact that you directly contradicted yourself within the span of two posts :0
you said that there was hard evidence though??? where is it?
I never said that. Of course they're going to be stronger - especially the Microsoft console. They're just not going to be as ridiculous as the leap this generation. I'm basically saying everything is conjecture - nothing is 'hard evidence'. For every one zealot that can point out a post where there is an anonymous dev saying "eh, Wii U - on par" you can be sure another zealot will be finding you a post that says "Wii U is definitely much stronger". It's a losing battle to play with conjecture and only leads to a bunch of posts fueled by confirmation bias. The post from the Microsoft engineer is simply to put it all into perspective (especially the part where he basically said the software will conform to the hardware).
You've been saying this for at least a year and I still don't understand why. What makes this generation jump any different than the previous?
The same could have been said of UE3 at the beginning of this generation in regards to sticking with UE2.
Any hard evidence on that "NDA" that is being thrown around all the time?
I see people implying that nobody can say anything about the Wii-U, except there are statements made almost every day. By devs, media, what have you.
Is it just wishful thinking at this point? Because it sounds like people expect the NDA to be lifted someday, and suddenly devs coming out of the woodwork in full support of the Wii-U, carrying spec sheets.
You've been saying this for at least a year and I still don't understand why. What makes this generation jump any different than the previous?
Any hard evidence on that "NDA" that is being thrown around all the time?
I see people implying that nobody can say anything about the Wii-U, except there are statements made almost every day. By devs, media, what have you.
Is it just wishful thinking at this point? Because it sounds like people expect the NDA to be lifted someday, and suddenly devs coming out of the woodwork in full support of the Wii-U, carrying spec sheets.
You're missing the fact that it's all unsubstantiated conjecture, and that there is no real argument in either direction
This is from a confirmed Microsoft engineer. Take it as you will (although if you want to go for unsubstantiated conjecture, you can say that this is why Epic is still whining to Microsoft and Sony that their consoles aren't strong enough for UE4):
Confirmed MS engineer but he's not in the Xbox team, correct?
There is none. In any respect, on any side of any argument.
Not a direct response but related... Do you have any idea how much the rest of MS dislikes the X-Box division? It's pretty surprising, really. They seem to consider the division to be a bunch of spoiled children that haven't earned their way.
Seriously, I've had dinner with some of these engineers and business folks from MS that just wish the whole damn division would close shop. Was shocked by it.
Anyway... just a tangent. Your comment just reminded me of this. Pursue your line of thought.
Maybe not hard evidence but we do have some generalities established.
Basically in the gist of "Wii U is less than 2X as powerful as PS360", imo.
Which means it can be anywhere from .9 to 1.9. But imo we're basically debating that range.
That sounds absolutely bizarre. Kind of assumed since the next XBox is probably going to use a modified version of Windows 8 (and the new dashboard already looks like a prototype of it) that there was more of a connection between the different divisions at Microsoft. Is seniority really that big a deal when it comes to inner-company politics such as this?Not a direct response but related... Do you have any idea how much the rest of MS dislikes the X-Box division? It's pretty surprising, really. They seem to consider the division to be a bunch of spoiled children that haven't earned their way.
Seriously, I've had dinner with some of these engineers and business folks from MS that just wish the whole damn division would close shop. Was shocked by it.
Anyway... just a tangent. Your comment just reminded me of this. Pursue your line of thought.
That sounds absolutely bizarre. Kind of assumed since the next XBox is probably going to use a modified version of Windows 8 (and the new dashboard already looks like a prototype of it) that there was more of a connection between the different divisions at Microsoft. Is seniority really that big a deal when it comes to inner-company politics such as this?
There is absolutely no reason to play the scalar game unless we actually have something about the system's performance to measure. We've got zilch.